Recommended Posts

Over the past few years, I have seen, joined in on, and became party too, several conversations in regards to "eventually" getting the USS Alaska in game. Now, here it is, 2018 and we have Senjo/Zoa for the Japanese, Kronstadt for the Russians, Hood for the British and still, no word pro or con on the USS Alaska. Will we ever see a heavy cruiser for the americans, or is this just another of [edited]??

Over the past few years, I have seen, joined in on, and became party too, several conversations in regards to "eventually" getting the USS Alaska in game. Now, here it is, 2018 and we have Senjo/Zoa for the Japanese, Kronstadt for the Russians, Hood for the British and still, no word pro or con on the USS Alaska. Will we ever see a heavy cruiser for the americans, or is this just another of [edited]??

Des Moines is a Heavy Cruiser for the USN in game right now. Alaska is a Battlecruiser (the "Large Cruiser" designation can go away to a deep deep trash can).

I'm sure she will come eventually... she is an interesting ship and will be fun to see once WG puts in the months of effort to takes make each ship. not at all because of Anti-American bias or Bussian Rias

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Over the past few years, I have seen, joined in on, and became party too, several conversations in regards to "eventually" getting the USS Alaska in game. Now, here it is, 2018 and we have Senjo/Zoa for the Japanese, Kronstadt for the Russians, Hood for the British and still, no word pro or con on the USS Alaska. Will we ever see a heavy cruiser for the americans, or is this just another of [edited]??

Anti american attitudes?? And yes you will get the Alaska. When i don't know.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

betting on q4 for alaska, maybe 2019 q1. those are my bets and have been for years.

theres no anti american bias. the USN has the most ships in the game, and more premium ships than other nations have ships.

Alabama was literally ruined by the NA server losing its crap. the bama was going to a select few as a thank you. the massipoopsits was going to be the clone everyone else got. NA rioted bama for everyone, and then complained the mass was a clone...

Will we ever see a heavy cruiser for the americans, or is this just another of [edited]??

IMHO, part of the reason we don't have Alaska yet is WoW doesn't know where to put her, as half the players want her as a BB at tier 7 and the other half want her as a cruiser at tier 9 or 10. Again, IMHO, this is why Kron and Stalingrad are being floated as cruisers rather than the Battleships they really are. Graf Spee was accepted as a cruiser, now the Russian BBs will be too, and then, hopfully, Alaska. Missouri put the Anti-American bias rumor to death, though Russian bias is alive and well. Now all they have to do is pass out guns and finish the "Cruiser / Battleship" debate, last one standing wins.

Share on other sites

Des Moines is a Heavy Cruiser for the USN in game right now. Alaska is a Battlecruiser (the "Large Cruiser" designation can go away to a deep deep trash can).

I'm sure she will come eventually... she is an interesting ship and will be fun to see once WG puts in the months of effort to takes make each ship. not at all because of Anti-American bias or Bussian Rias

`I kinda see her playing like the Scharny

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The problem as I have been led to believe regarding the Battleship Vs Cruiser debate is One of gun size?? Accordingly Cruisers have 11" guns and smaller whlileBattlewagons have 12" guns and larger, and yet the Kroni was designed with 15" guns, while thew Hood, which was the last surviving battlecruiser of original design also had 15" guns..

That kind of in reality and game, crushes the gun size argument doesnt it?? Or is it based on tonnage??

The problem as I have been led to believe regarding the Battleship Vs Cruiser debate is One of gun size?? Accordingly Cruisers have 11" guns and smaller whlileBattlewagons have 12" guns and larger, and yet the Kroni was designed with 15" guns, while thew Hood, which was the last surviving battlecruiser of original design also had 15" guns..

That kind of in reality and game, crushes the gun size argument doesnt it?? Or is it based on tonnage??

*Scharnhorst and Gneisenau peek over the corner regarding the gun caliber size*

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, Scharny had 11 inch guns, but they were German guns so, legendary just because..She also had good armor. Alaska had 12 inch American Guns ( troublesome ) and was light on the armor but very fast at 33 knots.. I actually see alaska playing somewhere between scharny and Zao..

Alaska will come, probabily as a TX like stralingrad, but its going take some time sinse they "release" the stalingrad for the players now in this clan wars.

Not sure if Alaska is cut out to be a T10. Even against the Kronshtadt she would struggle if we would dumb her down to how this game works.

She would be similarly armored, slower, have lower velocity guns. Given the lower displacement a worse hp can be expected as well. The one Point where Alaska would clearly trump would be with AA. But even then, her AA is not even Close to T10 Levels due to the Absence of the 76.2mm guns.

What I can find of dimensions she may have slightly worse spotting range.

That and just some of the discussion stuff seems to lean more toward her being placed as a lighter armoured BB, a fast BB, wgich honestly, is likely more suited to tier 7/8. They could have her as a cruiser, which not sure how I'd feel about that, even Kron doesn't really seem like it should be, but even then, I still think it really tops out around tier 8. And before anyone jumps on me for implying such - no, I do not feel Kron is a superior ship, honestly think it belongs a tier lower and have a lot of issues with recent premium ship tiering (Hood, GZ, E, DoY given she was made an inferior clone).

The stuff I find on it, Alaska falls in the same general realm as the fast BB's/BC's we see around tier 7, and the Balti that is at tier 8, And that's where I think she should be, tier 7 or 8. Rather see her there, where she is sure to suceed, then up tiered to 9 where like many other ships she's doomed to mediocrity at best because she should be a tier lower.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, my dad called her a battlecruiser, which he didnt call his own ship, the CA-4 ( Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh ( same ship)). i dontknow.. I personally consider Scharny, Hood and Amagi to be Battlecruisers. Cruisers armed enough to be battleships, but fast enough ( lightly armored enough ) to still be a cruiser..I know others see it differently. Not trying to change opinions here,

Placing her?? I think I'd place her alongside Kron and Zao..I just played my Scharny. 45000 damage, and she must have taken at least thirty hits from the other team ( i'm not a good player ). My Zao consistently does half that damage, gives me the exact same exp ( 970 exp. its a frikkin curse ) and well, it dies faster than almost anything else ive got, including the furry taco.. Since the other labeled battlecruisers are TX, I think Alaska should be TX also. If Alaska's belt armor is better than 30mm, then its better than my Zao.. Zao's guns are 12 inch, same as alaska, and 33knots puts the alaska with the Zao as well.. Wiki calls CB-1 Alaska a Large cruiser, so thats where she should be in my opinion..

I personally consider Scharny, Hood and Amagi to be Battlecruisers. Cruisers armed enough to be battleships, but fast enough ( lightly armored enough ) to still be a cruiser.

Problem is that Scharnhorst was by no means lightly armored. She had a thicker armor belt than numerous Battleships. The only ships with thicker belts would be the KGV-class, the Yamato-class, the HMS Vanguard and the Nelson class. And then they would also boast the internal armor with the sloped deck, further increasing vertical protection.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, my dad called her a battlecruiser, which he didnt call his own ship, the CA-4 ( Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh ( same ship)). i dontknow.. I personally consider Scharny, Hood and Amagi to be Battlecruisers. Cruisers armed enough to be battleships, but fast enough ( lightly armored enough ) to still be a cruiser..I know others see it differently. Not trying to change opinions here,

Placing her?? I think I'd place her alongside Kron and Zao..I just played my Scharny. 45000 damage, and she must have taken at least thirty hits from the other team ( i'm not a good player ). My Zao consistently does half that damage, gives me the exact same exp ( 970 exp. its a frikkin curse ) and well, it dies faster than almost anything else ive got, including the furry taco.. Since the other labeled battlecruisers are TX, I think Alaska should be TX also. If Alaska's belt armor is better than 30mm, then its better than my Zao.. Zao's guns are 12 inch, same as alaska, and 33knots puts the alaska with the Zao as well.. Wiki calls CB-1 Alaska a Large cruiser, so thats where she should be in my opinion..

Alaska is not a battle cruiser. She's not even close to a battleship and tends to lean closer to cruisers on most numbers.

The zao has 8 inch guns, not 12" guns.

Off hand I think the zao has a 155mm belt. Alaska sits at 230mm. It won't save you from battle ship guns. But should protect against most cruiser AP fairly well. Plus the belt rides pretty high so there's not much room for shots into the upper belt.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sorry, wiki says Zao had 12" guns. I'm not good at MM con=versions so please forgive my inaccuracies.. In Game, Zao has a 30mm armor belt.. Pretty much everything else top and sides is 25 MM.. She can be penned by a 5in destroyer..